2018 QCCQ 13886, 2018 QCCQ 13886

Protection de la jeunesse — 195593 2018 QCCQ 13886 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 640-41-002091-178 DATE: November 21, 2018 (written judgment rendered on April 23, 2019 ) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2013 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], Youth Protection worker, duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection A., working in [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother and B, residing and domiciled at [...] ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise a decision rendered on November 22, 2017, regarding the child X, born on [...], 2013. At that date the Court declared the security and development of the child still in danger and entrusted him to a foster family.

The Court also ordered that the Director of Youth Protection determine a life plan. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the child to his parents and recommends that he be entrusted to a foster family, namely Ms. C until he reaches the age of majority. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The parents are present and represented by Me Tommasel. They contest the measures and want their child back under their care immediately. [ 4 ] X who is 5 years old is absent, but represented by Me Neptune.

After hearing the evidence, Me Neptune invites the Court to prolong the placement for a short period and to authorize a reintegration under the parent’s care. Historical situation [ 5 ] On June 13, 2017 , the Court was seized with the application for protection. The parents admitted their alcohol consumption and conjugal violence issues. They also admitted violent gesture toward their youngest child, the lack of supervision and the neglect regarding the medical follow-up. The mother was hospitalized for hallucinations.

The Court mentioned: “the mother is on the [Center A]’s waiting list and if the situation improves, the plan is to have X with her.” The Court declared that the security and development of X are in danger and entrusted him to a foster family until December 2017, with a reintegration under the parent’s care as soon as possible. [ 6 ] On November 22, 2017 , the evidence revealed that the parents still have alcohol consumption issues. The father was detained for a few months. He disagreed with the facts that he did not collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection, and also with the suggested placement.

The mother was still on a waiting list to attend [Center A]. The mother collaborated well with the Director of Youth Protection, but she did not always respect the visits schedule. The Tribunal noted that according to the revision report prepared by Ms. C, the assigned worker, X (4 years old) was entrusted to 20 different foster families in his life. The DYP submitted that the mother was irregular in her different follow-ups (DYP, social services, healing circle, etc.). It was also reported that X showed signs of detachment toward his mother.

The Court entrusted him to a foster family until November 30, 2018, and ordered that a life plan be drawn. Facts

1- DYP worker’s testimony [ 7 ] In November 2017, X was entrusted to a specialized foster home in Town A to insure his appropriate stimulation. In February 2018, the DYP informs the mother that a long-term placement will be required, and as no foster family is available in the North, it will be a foster family in the South. [ 8 ] On February 15, 2018, a family council was held. The mother and her aunt were present. Few days after, as the mother’s sister was available to take care of X on a long term basis, the integration started on February 28, 2018.

Even if an adolescent with personal issues was living at that place, everyone convenes that the situation would be manageable with a close follow-up. [ 9 ] On March 14, 2018, a violent event occurred between this adolescent and another child living at the mother’s sister’s place. On March 29, 2018, it was decided to withdraw X from his aunt’s place and to entrust him under Ms. C’ care. At that moment, Ms. C took her vacation and go back to the South for one month. X went with her. During her stay, Ms.

C registered X at the day care in Town B for two or three days a week, and also to a play group. [ 10 ] For medical reason, Ms. C was not able to come back working in the North after her vacation. The DYP continued the follow- up by phone on a monthly basis. [ 11 ] In July, Ms. C, still in the South was looking for modalities to maintain X in contact with his culture, with his family and she invited the mother at her place to visit X. [ 12 ] From July 26 to July 30, 2018, the mother went to Town C to visit her son. She stayed at Ms. C’ place.

A lot of activities were organized and everybody enjoyed this moment. [ 13 ] In September 2018, X was registered in a French school in the region of Town C. [ 14 ] The DYP worker was assigned to this file in September 2018. She testifies that the mother works at school. She thinks the father work on a full-time schedule, but she is not sure. She does not know where he works, as she never had to reach him at work. She was not aware that the father worked for the Town D before his detention. [ 15 ] According to the information she obtained, the mother does not consume alcohol since July 2018.

As the mother is pregnant, and she knows that she does not consume during her pregnancies, the DYP worker has no doubt that this information is true. Her concerns are regarding what the mother will do after the birth. Will she relapses as she did before? [ 16 ] The DYP worker suspects that the parents could consume marijuana occasionally. Regarding their relation, the parents told her that no more conjugal violence event occurred between them. She was under the perception that the parents were separated, because during the detention, the mother said that the relation was over.

In October, during the meeting at her office, they told her that they are living together since the father is back. [ 17 ] Questioned about the verification she made with the police force to validate the absence of conjugal violence, the DYP worker admits that she did not communicate with [police services A] to ask if they have received reports about the parents between March 8 or March 28 [1] , 2018 (Father’s release), and the date of hearing (November 20, 2018).

She confirms that the DYP was not informed of any event. [ 18 ] She does not know since when the mother is pregnant, but before coming in the court room, she was made aware that the birth is scheduled for March 2019. So she deduces that she should be pregnant since July 2018. As she was sure the parents were not together, she did not ask who the father was. According to her, she was more concerned about the mother’s intention to keep or not the newborn. [ 19 ] The DYP worker still has doubts about the father’s capacity to deal with his emotion.

She saw him reacting at her office, and before coming in the court room also. As he recently went back to the village after his jail sentence, and as he did not ask for access, she did not have opportunity to observe him with his child. Since September 2018, she met with him only once. [ 20 ] Regarding the collaboration, she said that each time she called to meet them, the parents come at the office and they never refused to come. [ 21 ] Both parents went to the airport to welcome their son when he arrived for the court hearing with Ms. C.

Since his arrival, X is at his parents’ place. [ 22 ] She is surprised that the father never made any request to see his son. He should be aware that the mother went to Town C to see X. It would have been possible for him to ask to go also. According to her, the father has her phone number, he knows where her office is, so there is no reason for him not to make some step. In cross-examination, the worker admits that she did not read the notes about the organization of this access, so she does know exactly what’s happened in July about this visit.

She had the perception that the father was not involved, but when she saw him with his son during the present week, she notices that he loves his son and bonds exist between them. [ 23 ] She admits that she does not know how long the father was detained, and as she did not read the notes written by the previous worker, she does not know if the father saw his son when he was fostered in Town A, before his detention. She did not ask the mother why the father did not go to Town C with her. [ 24 ] According to her, the maximum delay of placement will be reached in December 2018, and X needs a stable place.

The parents had many chances to change, a foster family was found and there is no reason to make another life plan for X. With the birth coming soon, the situation is too uncertain. As a foster family is available, we have to take this opportunity. [ 25 ] The DYP worker testifies that the foster family is very involved in X’s life and very concerned by his well-being. Ms. C takes

care of his education, and she developed strong bonds with X. She is convinced that Ms. C and X would like to live together, and Ms. C is fully aware of what her involvement will imply. [ 26 ] With a long-term placement, the parents can benefit from frequent phone or video calls and a minimum of two visits per year. [ 27 ] She is aware that the parents disagree with the long-term placement. On October 17, when she met them at her office, she informed them about the recommendation to be made to the Court. The parents left her office when they understood the recommendation.

They were very emotional and they slammed the door. [ 28 ] The DYP worker was informed by the other worker that the mother has good parental capacities, but she did not have the opportunity to observe. According to Ms. C, the mother is adequate with her son. [ 29 ] The DYP worker said that the mother expressed agree with a long-term placement as it’s in the best interest of the child.

But after few questions, she finally said that as the mother told her son was well taken care in the foster family, she deduced that the mother agreed with a long-term placement, but she recognizes that the mother never clearly gave her consent for this kind of placement. [ 30 ] Questioned by the Court about the follow-up done, the DYP worker answer that when she was assigned to this file in September 2018, she read the notes written during the two or three months before. She was not able to read more, because she was assigned in the file of 30 different children and she misses time to read all the files.

The frequency of meeting with the parents is around once every two or three weeks as the other families. She met the parents for the first time in October, because she did not have address to reach them before. At the beginning of October, she met with the police force who gives her the address. At that time, she did not ask them if they have information about any events involving the parents. [ 31 ] She met first the mother on October 3, 2018. As she read the relation between the parents was over, she did not ask her where the father was living. She checks for the father’s address on October 16, 2018.

Considering her case load and the period of training, she was not able to check before. [ 32 ] The second meeting took place with both parents at her office on October 17, 2018. The purpose of the meeting was to present the DYP’s recommendation. According to her, the presence of an interpreter was not necessary as the mother is totally bilingual. As the maximum delay of placement was reached, it was not discussed about the steps made by the parents since the last order. In her mind, the mother agreed with this recommendation, and with the life plan since a long time.

It was not a question about working on a reintegration. 2- Ms. C’s testimony [ 33 ] Ms. C lived in Town A during one and half year. She worked as a DYP worker and also at the specialized foster family where X was entrusted from November 2017, to March 2018. As a DYP worker, she was responsible for X’s file for a period of eight or nine months until March 29, 2018. [ 34 ] She was offered to foster X on March 14. She accepted and officially became a foster family for X on March 29, 2018. At that date, another worker was assigned to the file. [ 35 ] On March 29, 2018, as Ms.

C was on vacation, she travelled down South with X. She was supposed to be there only for one month, but for a medical reason she was not able to back to work at the end of her vacation. When she realized that it will be longer, she invited the mother to come to visit X. [ 36 ] Ms. C had a good relationship with the mother, but not such as good with the father. For this reason, she was uncomfortable to have him at her place, and she invited only the mother. [ 37 ] The parents have family members living in Town E. Ms. C knows them and appreciates them. Those family members came to her place to visit X.

Doing so, the parents will have a place to stay when they come down South to see their son. Ms. C confirms that the parents are welcome to call their son when they want, and also to come as the mother came last summer. [ 38 ] She also considers that the visits in the North are important. She agrees to come from time to time according to the modality of payment by the DYP. She is aware that generally, the DYP assume two travels per year. She also wants to make sure that the supervision at the parents’ place will be adequate. [ 39 ] X adapted very well to his new environment. He is very attached to his new family.

She considers that he needs to be stabilized. She is available and she wants to take care of him. [ 40 ] X speaks English at home, French at school and [language A] during the activities organized on Sunday in Town C. The [language A] teacher is X’s relative. Ms. C is a member of an association which support the non-[origin A] parents fostering [origin A] children. Ms. C adapted X’s room decoration to the [origin A] culture. [ 41 ] The summer visit went very well. They made a lot of activities. During her stay, the mother was taking care of X.

As she owns a multigenerational house, the mother was able to be alone with X and to take care of him. [ 42 ] The mother never clearly told her that she agreed with a long-term placement, but when she knew that she would not go back living in the North, Ms. C started to speak more openly with the mother about her perception of the situation. They discussed about the organization of the contacts and the phone calls. Ms. C is aware that a lot of [origin A] parents do not know their rights. For this reason, she invited the mother to speak with the worker to express her fears, her questions, etc. [ 43 ] Ms.

C is conscious that X knows his parents. He lived around them until March 2018. As she said, he knows that he has an “[surname A] and an [surname B]” [2] in the North, and he is attached to them. She will have to live with that. But according to her, X is very affected by their lack of constancy.

3- Father’s testimony [ 44 ] The father was detained from August 2017, to March 8, 2018. His conditional sentence order was terminated. When he was released, he went back living with his spouse and her uncle, and he is still living there today. [ 45 ] The father said that he was never separated from the mother. He is totally sober since he was arrested, and he never relapses since he is released. Thanks to this sobriety of both parents, no conjugal violence event occurred between them since he is back. [ 46 ] The father did not hear about DYP between his release and October 2018.

Before Ms. [social worker 1] was assigned to this file, he attempted many times to meet with a DYP worker, but they change all the time and no translator are available, so when one DYP worker is available, the father can’t speak with him or her. The father also noted that when a translator is available, he is convinced that the entire discussion is not translated. [ 47 ] He met with Ms. [social worker 1] the first time in October, when she came at their place. She asked him to come at her office and he went on his lunch time, but she was not there.

Later, she called twice to meet with them and he went, so he met with her twice. [ 48 ] For the second meeting, he was with the mother. Ms. [social worker 1] told them that she would recommend a foster family until the majority. The father did not understand she could recommend such a placement without any information about them and about their situation. He was very angry and he left the meeting room with his spouse. [ 49 ] As he never met a DYP worker since his release, he was not offered to exercise access rights. He did not know how to obtain access and with whom to communicate.

He asked to his spouse if he could also go, but she said, “I don’t know.” [ 50 ] The father recalls the time when his son was taken by the DYP. He suffered a lot and does not want to live that again. He wants his son back immediately. He told the Court that his life changed a lot since he was detained last time. He realizes the impacts of his consumption on himself and on his family. He knows that the DYP was involved because of his consumption. He does not consume since his arrest, and he never feels so well. He is working full time since June 2018. His spouse is pregnant and he wants his family reunited.

He engages himself to take care of his family. He said: “I’m not the same person as before.” He wants to be a “good person”. He wants to raise his son in the [origin A] culture and [origin A] values. He told the Court that he wants his son to become a hunter, not a hockey player. [ 51 ] The parents live in a house with the mother’s uncle.

There is no consumption at home and there is enough place to receive X and the newborn. [ 52 ] To maintain his sobriety and to become a good person as he said, the father involves himself in his job and in traditional activities (fishing, hunting) with family members and elderly people. His extended family is very helpful, and they give him a lot of support with regards with his parental skills. [ 53 ] He did not benefit from programs in detention because he speaks only [language A], and no translation was offered.

Since he is back, he benefit from help with the elders and he attends meeting with the Justice Committee once a month. He never misses any meeting since he is back. [ 54 ] The father does not understand why the DYP has this position today. When the DYP lawyer suggested him that the judge ordered a life plan for his child, he said that if the judge said that, he did not understand it. According to him, no translator was available at the court hearing.

The “procès-verbal” confirmed that no translator was present and the length of the hearing was 26 minutes for two children, including a long-term placement for the oldest. [ 55 ] The father is disappointed to see that as soon as his son was entrusted to Ms. C, she went down South and she never came back. He has the feeling that this situation was planned. [ 56 ] Between March 8, 2018 (his release) and March 29, 2018 (X’s departure), the father saw his son only a few minutes at the DYP office. Since X left down South with the foster family, he did not see him except around five times by Facetime.

Because of his work schedule, he was not able to speak more with him, but he has news from his spouse who communicate with their son more frequently. [ 57 ] He saw his son for the first time this week. He picks up him at the airport and he is living with them since his arrival. The family is very happy to have this access. 4- Mother’s testimony [ 58 ] The mother is sober since February 2018. She became pregnant in June 2018. [ 59 ] The mother confirms that the parents lived together since the father is back from jail.

Both are totally sober and no violent event occurred between them. [ 60 ] She also confirms that between March and October 2018, no DYP worker came at their place to meet with her and no meeting took place at the DYP office. She met one worker in July, only to organize the trip to Town C. In October 2018, when Ms. [social worker 1] was assigned to the file, she came at her place to introduce herself. At that time, Ms. [social worker 1] never asked about the father.

Finally, she met her three times before the hearing, twice alone and once with the father. [ 61 ] She adds that as the workers changed all the time, it was easier to communicate directly with the foster family to have contact with her son. It’s for this reason that the contact in July was previously organized between her and the foster family. [ 62 ] The mother is followed by the Social Services. She went a few times before the visit in Town C. As she never met the DYP worker, she did not tell them that she received a follow-up from Social Services. Also, as they work in the same building, she is

convinced that they speak to each other. [ 63 ] The mother appreciated her visit in July. X was very happy to see her. This week, he is with them at home and he expresses the desire to stay with them. [ 64 ] The mother is working full time at school as a teacher in training. She loves her job. She teaches in First year in [language A] as she does not speak English.

The teaching is exclusively in [language A] until the end of the second year, and it’s 50% in [language A] starting at the third year. [ 65 ] The mother has an oldest child who was adopted by her mother, but he is always at her place and she takes care of him. She considers being totally able to take care of her children. [ 66 ] The mother reminds the meeting which took place in March to find a long-term foster family. Her aunt was present. It was very tough on her. She had the perception that the decision was taken and that she could not change it.

She felt alone against a big machine. [ 67 ] When X was entrusted to her sister, she saw him every day. She saw him also very frequently when he was in the specialized foster home in Town A. Since he is down South, despite the access in Town C in July, she saw him only by Facetime. She knew that the father could ask for access, but she also knew that the foster family does not appreciate the father and does not accept him at her place. [ 68 ] As the father, the mother did not understand when the judge spoke about “life plan” during the previous hearing. No interpreter was present.

She understood from the judge that she needs to wait that the Court comes back to modify the decision. So even if her situation was better since February, she did nothing to seize the Court. [ 69 ] Concerning the few meetings she had with the DYP worker, it was the same thing: no interpreter was present and she did not understand what was said. She recognizes that she told her son was well taken care by the foster family, but she never told agree with a long-term placement.

She admits having left the meeting room in October, with her husband when they understood that their son would be placed down South until he reaches his majority. [ 70 ] The mother considers being able to take care of her son as she does for the oldest one. She wants her son back immediately, and he could be present for the birth of the newborn. She will be at home during her maternity leave. Before the birth, if a place is available at the day care, she will register him. If not, her father is at home, and available to take care of his grandson.

She did not have the opportunity to speak with Ms. [social worker 1] about those plans, because each time she meets with her, they speak only about the long- term placement and everything appear to be settled. Analysis [ 71 ] The evidence reveals that the parent’s situation changed drastically since the last hearing. The father was detained for few months, and this period seemed to be a wake-up call for them. [ 72 ] They are both working full time, they quit drinking for many months and their relationship is not a violent one as before.

To be able to do so, for sure because of his detention, the father was away from consumption, but he showed to be able to maintain his sobriety even when back in his community. The mother is also sober for few months. [ 73 ] What kind of help did they received to achieve that? The mother went to see the Social Services, the father involved himself in his job and in traditional activities with family members and elderly people. They changed their way of life for the best. [ 74 ] Did they receive help from the DYP? Not at all. They were met only one month before the court hearing.

They were met to announce them that everything was organized for a long-term placement of their child. Before this meeting, no clinical follow-up was done because no DYP worker was available to offer it. By chance, the parents found the help somewhere else and they improved their situation a lot. [ 75 ] The Court can’t ignore that no clinical follow-up was done, at least since March 2018.

The Court can’t ignore neither the fact that event if a new worker was assigned, she did not have time to read the entire file before coming at the court hearing because she had too much situations to take care of when she arrived. The Court is aware of the difficulty to recruit new workers and to keep them. That being said, the first persons affected by the situation are the children and their parents.

It’s not acceptable that a worker, coming at the court house to present a motion to entrust a child to a foster family until the majority, is not able to answer the question asked by the lawyers and by the Court. [ 76 ] The role of the DYP is to help the parents to assume their parental responsibilities. As an exceptional law, the purpose of the intervention is to give tools to the parents to be able to keep their children at home or to have them back if a placement is necessary.

For sure, the parents have to take the necessary steps to apply the counsels from the DYP, and to make sure that their situation evolves positively. [ 77 ] Because children have the right to live in a safe, stable and loving environment, the lawmakers established the maximum delays of placement. In the situation of X who is now 5 years old, the maximum delay is 18 months.

This delay will be reached in December 2018. [ 78 ] This delay permits to the parents to make the necessary changes in their life before the child would be too attached to his new environment. [ 79 ] When a delay is reached, the Court should determine a long-term measure for the child, if the situation of the parents still does not allow to return the child under their care. A long-term measure could also be refused by the Court and/or only an extension of the measures ordered when the DYP did not provide the appropriate services.

[ 80 ] In X’s situation, not only the parents made drastic improvements, but they did it by themselves as they did not receive any services from the DYP. The Court has no evidence that the reasons why the placement was necessary still exist. [ 81 ] Now, the question is to know if the child should be back at his parents’ place right now or in few months. [ 82 ] The situation of the parents appeared to be stable for few months. The only aspect which could affect this stability is the birth of the baby in March 2019.

Actually the parents have a child adopted by the grandmother, but this child spend the most of his time at their place. The Court has no evidence that the DYP is involved in his life, so the Court considers that this is not problematic. The mother is working full time for two years, she will benefit from a maternity leave and will receive allowance during that period. The father will continue to work and to provide for the family. [ 83 ] A birth is a normal thing in a family and it’s obvious that the parents have support from their family members.

The Court has no evidence that the return of X and the birth of the baby could destabilize the harmony, and diminish their capacity to maintain their sobriety and their improvement. The Court impress upon the father the importance to help the mother at home, as she could become tired. The reintegration of their child could be a success if both of them contribute to this success. [ 84 ] X has the right to live as soon as possible with his parents if the situation allows it, and in this case, there is no reason to delay his return. [ 85 ] As mentioned at the hearing, the Court is very concerned by the fact that Ms.

C, previous worker for X, was chosen to be a foster family. When she was offered to foster him, she was the worker assigned in his file. The questionable situation continues with her departure for vacation which changes quickly for a sick leave and finally, she testifies not being sure to come back in the North. [ 86 ] When X left with her to go down South at the end of March 2018, it was announced to the parents that he would be there only for one month.

Before that, X was in contact with his parent’s every day, not by FaceTime, in person. [ 87 ] What was announced to the parents changed to the point that X should not come back anymore. The only discussion occurred with the parents about this aspect was about the organization of the contacts in the future.

At that time, the Court never ordered a long- term placement and everyone had to work in a way to return the child under his parents’ care. [ 88 ] Knowing that X was registered to day care in Town B during the month of April, despite the facts that he should come back to the North a few days after, the Court wonders what the real motivation of Ms. C. The strategy allows us to think that the DYP acted under a hidden agenda. [ 89 ] Despite the questions, no reasonable answer was given to understand how, Ms.

C could register an [origin A] child for only few days a week and only for one month at the day care in the community of Town B, when all the day cares have a waiting list. [ 90 ] Finally, the Court would like to talk about the absence of a translator during the meeting with the DYP worker in October. Even if the DYP worker was under the perception that the mother understood English, the Court had the opportunity to see that the hearing would not have been possible if the translators would not have been present.

She testifies for at least one hour and half, and it was very clear that she did not fake not to be able to speak and to understand English. [ 91 ] The guiding principles of the YPA were not followed in this situation on many aspects. As the parents did not receive follow- up, the DYP was totally unaware of the real situation, and of the changes they made. Doing so, the passage of the time permitted to reach the maximum delay of placement.

Because the delay is reached, the fact that the child is well taken care with the foster family and that he is already down South, why should we change this organization, this agenda? We should change it because the law was not respected and doing so, the rights of the child and of the parents have been violated. [ 92 ] For those reason, the Court will recommend the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse to investigate on the lack of services, the absence of translator during the meeting, the potential conflict of interest of Ms. C and any other aspect they will consider relevant.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 93 ] GRANTS partially the application; [ 94 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child X, born on [...], 2013, are still in danger; [ 95 ] ORDERS that the child be entrusted to his parents; [ 96 ] ORDERS that the parents remain sober and without any violent behavioural in the presence of the child; [ 97 ] ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 98 ] ORDERS that the parents report in person, at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 99 ] ORDERS that the parents offer a good collaboration with the Director of Youth Protection’s services; [ 100 ] ENCOURAGES that the parents seek help through the Social Services or any other organizations in the community and to continue the follow-up with the Justice Committee or other organizations; [ 101 ] AUTHORIZES the Director of Youth Protection to conduct unannounced visits at the parents’ home at a maximum of once a week;

[ 102 ] STRONGLY ENCOURAGES that the child be registered to a day care; [ 103 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the child and the parents. [ 104 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the present decision to the Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse; [ 105 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child [...] , to the Director of Youth Protection A, who shall then see that the measures are carried out; [ 106 ] THE WHOLE until November 30, 2019. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Sarah Bourgeois-Lessard, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Cassandra Neptune, attorney for the child Me Angèle Tommasel, attorney for the parents Dates of hearing: November 20 and 21, 2018